Fal·la·cy, NOUN

A mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.
A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
Synonyms
mistake - error - fault - delusion - sophism

From the comments on this post:

Eric said...

This is all bullshit. Just red herring defense tactics that weren't relevant to the case whatsoever. That's why the judge denied it. Even if it was allowed, it would not have changed the jury's opinion. The jury in the civil trial heard some of this bullshit, and they still decided Carlos was guilty. Ponder that for a moment.

 Incandesio said...

I'd rather ponder your claim to know what would and would not have swayed the jury.

Now I'm pondering the possibility that you're actually a psychic;

I pointed out on the last post you commented on that the civil jury was handed a case that was already decided; if what SPM has written is true, they weren't allowed to decide whether or not Carlos was guilty, only what he should have to pay under the assumption that he was. 25k, a paltry amount, x 0. That's not exactly a ringing indictment of a dangerous child molester.

Eric said...

Is 25K really a paltry amount? What kind of bankroll do you have?

Anyway, no, I don't think Carlos is telling us the whole truth, as per usual. According to this Chron article (http://www.chron.com/entertainment/music/article/Family-of-South-Park-Mexican-victim-awarded-1935238.php), "the jury last week unanimously concluded that Coy acted with malice when he molested the girl."

So that should tell you right there that the jury agreed that he was guilty. And think about it, if the jury truly believed he was an innocent man like Carlos claims, then they could have awarded the family zero dollars.

"Eleven of the 12 jurors voted to spare Coy from paying any punitive damages."

At least one juror thought he should have been punished further. Personally, I think he had already been punished enough. I can understand making him pay for past and future therapy (hence the 25K), but there is no need for punitive damages since he had already been sentenced for 45 years, an adequate punishment. I think most of the jury thought the same.

But this is what I find most interesting. In a civil trial, the defendant is required to take the stand. He can't hide behind his lawyer. I would be fascinated to read the transcripts from the civil trial when Carlos took the stand. I would be fascinated to read his deposition too. Think about the goldmine of information we could obtain from that. Finally a chance to read his side of the story, since he hasn't been willing to tell us for over 11 years now. Did he actually admit his involvement? Or did he continue to deny the allegations? Even if the judge ruled that they had to presume he was guilty, Carlos still had the right to deny that and say he was innocent. We need those transcripts, Incandesio. Can you get them?

Once again, I find myself drawn into a discussion of the civil trial by the actions of Eric, this blog’s #1 most-beloved gadfly.

He’s left variations of this argument on a few different posts, and I asked him to go ahead and sum it up for me, which he has not done; he’ll have to be happy with my translation of his arguments:

Argument #1: Two juries decided Coy was guilty, the criminal jury and the civil jury! Coy is obviously lying when he says that the civil jury was forced by the court to view him as guilty!

Dude...in the article you quoted, the defense attorney says “They had to presume some level of actual damages” (emphasis mine.) But okay, we know that you believe defense attorneys are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

From the jury instructions signed January 28, 2005:

Mr. Coy has previously been convicted of aggravated sexual assault on [Jane Doe], and that conviction is now final. As a result, the Plaintiff is not required to produce any evidence of Mr. Coy’s liability for actual damages, and the only issues for your consideration are those set forth in Question 1...

...Question 1: What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate [Jane Doe] for her injuries, if any, that resulted from the occurrence in question?

There you have it, Eric. You propped up your fallacious and unsupported argument with the assertion that Coy is not “telling us the whole truth, as per usual”, without bothering to do the minimal amount of research it takes to uncover these same documents, thoughtfully provided free of charge by Harris County.

The civil jury convicted him of nothing. They were specifically instructed not to let ‘bias, prejudice, or sympathy’ affect their decisions; they were only allowed to answer the questions put to them using the evidence provided.

I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who draws a wrong conclusion from legal documents through misunderstanding; I’m a reasonably intelligent person, but half the time it’s like swimming through pudding trying to comprehend the meaning behind all the legalese and lawyer-speak; but for you to come over here dropping obviously, demonstrably wrong arguments on post after post like so many dog turds across my lawn...I don’t like it, Eric. Do better.

Argument #2: 25K is a perfectly reasonable amount for damages! How can you say it’s “paltry”? What are you, some kind of rich fuck?!?

 Ha ha, my bankroll; it's more of a bankflat, actually. But my use of the word paltry has nothing to do with what I have, and everything to do with what the family's lawyer expected to get. I'll talk about that in a minute.

You quoted a newspaper article: "the jury last week unanimously concluded that Coy acted with malice when he molested the girl."

So that should tell you right there that the jury agreed that he was guilty. And think about it, if the jury truly believed he was an innocent man like Carlos claims, then they could have awarded the family zero dollars.

In answer, I draw your attention to this portion of the document mentioned above:

A “yes” answer must be based upon a preponderance of evidence. If you do not find that a preponderance of the evidence supports a “yes” answer, then answer “no”.

Is it possible to commit the aggravated sexual assault of a child without malice? No, it’s not. The jury was instructed not to look at the case as a whole, but to focus in on each question and answer it without regard to the outcome.

Is it possible for a molested child to have suffered no harm? No, it’s not. Because they had to treat the conviction as an accurate account of what had happened, they were legally obligated to compensate for the suffering that would have occurred. Interestingly enough, by finding malice, they opened him up to sky-high exemplary damages.

I notice that you take the argument of the Doe family’s lawyer for your own; that, since Carlos Coy was already sentenced to 45 years, they felt he didn’t need to be punished anymore. But the fact is, that same lawyer expected this lawsuit to have a major payout.

In the Civil Case Information Sheet, filed 9-4-2002, he clearly stipulated that he was seeking damages over $100,000. According to Coy, when his lawyer explained that he would automatically be presumed guilty and recommended he settle:

“I know you don’t want to hear this, but you may want to think about giving them an offer to avoid taking this to court. I think you should talk to your brother and come up with something that’s good for you. I understand that you don’t want to give these people a dime, but you’ve got to weigh out the situation. You could lose everything you’ve ever worked for, and then some.”

The next weekend, I spoke to Tudy. I explained that the fight would be lost even before we put the gloves on. We decided that the smartest thing to do was to make an offer. This was one of the lowest points in my life; having to pay people money who didn’t work for it, and for damn sure didn’t deserve it. We agreed that $300,000 was more than fair, and something we could handle.

A week later, Tudy wrote me and told me that our lawyer gave their lawyer the offer, and their lawyer started laughing. There would be no deal and the trial was locked in.”

http://www.spmaftermath.com/2011/12/spm-responds-part-2.html

He laughed at the idea of $300,000. The Cause of Action, a copy of which is attached to the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Release Documents filed on 8-3-2004, states:

“...Plaintiffs suggest such punitive damages should greatly exceed any actual damages by as much as tenfold.” (emphasis mine)

If my reading of the Texas Civil Code section 41.008 is correct, there was no cap on the amount of damages, so, yeah, compared to what the Doe family’s lawyer apparently thought this case was worth, 25K is a minimal amount.

Really, the exemplary damages seem like the only part of the settlement for which the jury was allowed to make an informed decision; the only time they were asked to consider (from the aforementioned document):

a. the nature of the wrong

b. the character of the conduct involved

c. the degree of culpability of the wrongdoer

d. the situation and sensibilities of the parties concerned

e. the extent to which such conduct offends a public sense of justice and propriety

f. the net worth of Carlos Coy

They were ordered to answer in dollars and cents; their answer, as we know, was zero. A big ol’ goose egg.

Argument #3: Eric really, reeeeeally wants to read what Coy said during the civil trial and asks, “We need those transcripts, Incandesio. Can you get them?”

We need them? Eric, as much as I adore the idea of playing your pal Gal Friday on this Epic Journey into The Goldmine of What You Believe Might Have Been Said, I have to wonder why someone who professes to have so much interest in and knowledge of this case is so unfamiliar with the facts of it.

I mean, you’re willing to dig up an ancient, dust-covered, barely coherent accusation made by an anonymous poster on an obscure brown-pride forum to support your views, but you can’t be bothered to take a look at the easily-available government documents that would prove your entire premise is bullshit, and willfully ignorant bullshit at that.

I don’t need the civil transcripts. Your obsessive desire for them appears to spring out of  nothing more than voyeuristic avarice; if you got them, I suspect you would read them the same way you read this blog, discounting what does not support your opinion as lies and imagining “context” that makes supporting evidence seem more damning than is reasonable.

Eric, you may accuse me of faking these documents; if that has occurred to you, I sincerely invite you to abandon your penchant for sophistry and actually do some damn research. We both know that you’re smarter than the average bear and if I can find these documents, then so can you.